MaxPlanck wrote:Bundy is iconic of the right's problem: when finding an icon from the hinterlands to illustrate individualist maxims who's supposedly suffered from the evil excesses of the Federal government - which when examined, it's evident that Bundy is there to just get what's in it for him - up pops another inarticulate Neanderthal who should have been left in the desert rubble he crawled out of. Next time, a little vetting and grooming will be in order for the next champion for the cause although I found that clip of Bundy riding his horse with the U.S. flag after declaring his non-recognition of the government was entertaining, in a contradictory sort of way.

There was no contradiction, our flag is the real representation of the country not the federal government. Our federal government has been bought and paid and no longer represents the people while the flag represents the individuals who fought and died defending this country.

The real contradiction is we have the BLM thugs killing Bundy's cattle because he owes 1.1 million dollars in back taxes and fees, while back in Washington D.C. we have IRS employees who collectively owe far more than that is back taxes, getting bonus checks for doing a great job. We also have people like Charlie Rangel and Warren Buffet owing more in back taxes than Bundy, dining at the White House with Obama.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

Bundy told supporters on Saturday that black people ‘abort their young children, put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton’

Bundy used some bad analogies but his message was the same as many others have suggestedIn one of his quotes he used the phrase never learned to pick cotton and he was referencing the neighborhoods in Watts. With myself coming from a more rural background it was clear to me he meant many inner city children are never taught good work habits and therefore are destined to fail in their later years. How many of our leaders have been saying just about the same things only in more politically correct terms?

Try thinking about his meanings instead of just the words he used, and you might think a little differently about Bundy.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

Bundy told supporters on Saturday that black people ‘abort their young children, put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton’

Bundy used some bad analogies but his message was the same as many others have suggestedIn one of his quotes he used the phrase never learned to pick cotton and he was referencing the neighborhoods in Watts. With myself coming from a more rural background it was clear to me he meant many inner city children are never taught good work habits and therefore are destined to fail in their later years. How many of our leaders have been saying just about the same things only in more politically correct terms?

Try thinking about his meanings instead of just the words he used, and you might think a little differently about Bundy.

Juan, your defense of the indefensible highlights how far out of touch you are with reality. Just like Cliven Bundy.

windbourne wrote:And as to reid being a white collar, you might look up his background. This was a man that was raised dirt poor, and made something of himself.

Yeah right. Harry Reid has made so much of himself that he feels free to call decent American people, who peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies, "Domestic Terrorists," equating them with the violent and unconscionable murderers of 9-11 and other murderers . . . a repugnant comparison on Harry's part.

I'm sorry. What situation are you referring to in which ppl "peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies"? Because it sure was not about bundy.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

namoki wrote:Regardless of Bundy's Politically Incorrect delivery, it still doesn't change the reason why Oath Keepers had to leave their homes and families to face down 290 armed Feds and their Mercs. who were ready and willing to use deadly force to take what wasn't theirs to take.

Since the DPEB has never denounced Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson for their actual racist statements and involvements, we know what views the DP harbors. Oh yeah, and we're not surprised. Racist fools.

No, it does not change the fact that Bundy is a POS that runs around stealing what is not his. Personally, I think that the feds made a mistake in allowing this. They are afraid of more baloney like in Waco, but the fact remains that when you do not own the land and then insist on keeping your herd on it, well, they should all be shot.

And if a bunch of far right-wing nutjobs are going to try to stop a legal, and more importantly,moral action, well, upon their first shot, take them out.

?!

If I step into your home with a shotgun and tell you that if you shoot my dog that I put in your home, that I will shoot you as well, do you believe that you have a moral right to take me out? And to add injury to insult, I declare your home, MINE!

Darn straight you do. And it would be moral to do so. I am not just stealing from you, but I am lying about it and then I am threatening you. It is moral to protect oneself from criminal trash like that. Heck, the neo-cons pushed a make-my-day law here for just that reason.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

Bundy told supporters on Saturday that black people ‘abort their young children, put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton’

Bundy used some bad analogies but his message was the same as many others have suggestedIn one of his quotes he used the phrase never learned to pick cotton and he was referencing the neighborhoods in Watts. With myself coming from a more rural background it was clear to me he meant many inner city children are never taught good work habits and therefore are destined to fail in their later years. How many of our leaders have been saying just about the same things only in more politically correct terms?

Try thinking about his meanings instead of just the words he used, and you might think a little differently about Bundy.

Juan, your defense of the indefensible highlights how far out of touch you are with reality. Just like Cliven Bundy.

veloboldie wrote:Bundy will be Bundy; his knowledge of the world does not extend beyond his ranch's outhouse. However, the best part is how quickly the GOP did a complete about face and run for the hills.

Funny, I hear condemnation it was not fast enough. I say better late than never and isn't hindsight to this insight wonderful? But it still gives no points coaching the game.

It was definitely fortuitous in taking attention off the feds.

‎"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams

Mr. Bundy is more ignorant than Sarah Palin and racist. He is also a violent lawbreaker, borderline terrorist. He needs to turn himself in for tresspassing and illegal grazing.A bully who went too far....

The one good thing is that he comes on TV and people can see themselves in him and hopefully get ashamed....

Last edited by badbadperson on April 26th, 2014, 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

You may tread on me, my brothers and sisters, my neighbors, and my country.......

windbourne wrote:And as to reid being a white collar, you might look up his background. This was a man that was raised dirt poor, and made something of himself.

Yeah right. Harry Reid has made so much of himself that he feels free to call decent American people, who peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies, "Domestic Terrorists," equating them with the violent and unconscionable murderers of 9-11 and other murderers . . . a repugnant comparison on Harry's part.

I'm sorry. What situation are you referring to in which ppl "peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies"? Because it sure was not about bundy.

The question is did the change from "peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies" occur before or after the BLM thugs arrived at the Bundy ranch and started killing Bundy's cattle?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

MaxPlanck wrote:Bundy is iconic of the right's problem: when finding an icon from the hinterlands to illustrate individualist maxims who's supposedly suffered from the evil excesses of the Federal government - which when examined, it's evident that Bundy is there to just get what's in it for him - up pops another inarticulate Neanderthal who should have been left in the desert rubble he crawled out of. Next time, a little vetting and grooming will be in order for the next champion for the cause although I found that clip of Bundy riding his horse with the U.S. flag after declaring his non-recognition of the government was entertaining, in a contradictory sort of way.

There was no contradiction, our flag is the real representation of the country not the federal government. Our federal government has been bought and paid and no longer represents the people while the flag represents the individuals who fought and died defending this country.

The real contradiction is we have the BLM thugs killing Bundy's cattle because he owes 1.1 million dollars in back taxes and fees, while back in Washington D.C. we have IRS employees who collectively owe far more than that is back taxes, getting bonus checks for doing a great job. We also have people like Charlie Rangel and Warren Buffet owing more in back taxes than Bundy, dining at the White House with Obama.

Secondly, Buffet's company is taking to court tax issues. That started in 2002. BUT, you can bet on it that if he loses that he will pay. OTOH, Bundy is basically saying that he will not pay a penny to graze on land, and continues to keep his cattle there, ignoring all of the court's actions.

Third, I think that many would agree that the nation no longer represents the ppl. BUT, it DOES represent large companies, such as bundy's.

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

MaxPlanck wrote:Bundy is iconic of the right's problem: when finding an icon from the hinterlands to illustrate individualist maxims who's supposedly suffered from the evil excesses of the Federal government - which when examined, it's evident that Bundy is there to just get what's in it for him - up pops another inarticulate Neanderthal who should have been left in the desert rubble he crawled out of. Next time, a little vetting and grooming will be in order for the next champion for the cause although I found that clip of Bundy riding his horse with the U.S. flag after declaring his non-recognition of the government was entertaining, in a contradictory sort of way.

There was no contradiction, our flag is the real representation of the country not the federal government. Our federal government has been bought and paid and no longer represents the people while the flag represents the individuals who fought and died defending this country.

The real contradiction is we have the BLM thugs killing Bundy's cattle because he owes 1.1 million dollars in back taxes and fees, while back in Washington D.C. we have IRS employees who collectively owe far more than that is back taxes, getting bonus checks for doing a great job. We also have people like Charlie Rangel and Warren Buffet owing more in back taxes than Bundy, dining at the White House with Obama.

The IRS employees', Charlie Rangel's or Warren Buffet's indiscretions are not prima facie justifications to wipe Bundy's slate clean. Get them all to comply; a nation without law is no longer a nation, merely a collection of self-serving tribes.

MaxPlanck wrote:Bundy is iconic of the right's problem: when finding an icon from the hinterlands to illustrate individualist maxims who's supposedly suffered from the evil excesses of the Federal government - which when examined, it's evident that Bundy is there to just get what's in it for him - up pops another inarticulate Neanderthal who should have been left in the desert rubble he crawled out of. Next time, a little vetting and grooming will be in order for the next champion for the cause although I found that clip of Bundy riding his horse with the U.S. flag after declaring his non-recognition of the government was entertaining, in a contradictory sort of way.

There was no contradiction, our flag is the real representation of the country not the federal government. Our federal government has been bought and paid and no longer represents the people while the flag represents the individuals who fought and died defending this country.

The real contradiction is we have the BLM thugs killing Bundy's cattle because he owes 1.1 million dollars in back taxes and fees, while back in Washington D.C. we have IRS employees who collectively owe far more than that is back taxes, getting bonus checks for doing a great job. We also have people like Charlie Rangel and Warren Buffet owing more in back taxes than Bundy, dining at the White House with Obama.

Secondly, Buffet's company is taking to court tax issues. That started in 2002. BUT, you can bet on it that if he loses that he will pay. OTOH, Bundy is basically saying that he will not pay a penny to graze on land, and continues to keep his cattle there, ignoring all of the court's actions.

Third, I think that many would agree that the nation no longer represents the ppl. BUT, it DOES represent large companies, such as bundy's.

First off, they rounded up the cattle and never sought to kill them.

The BlM thugs shot two of Bundys bull, in addition rounding up cattle with helicopters during calving season is the same as killing either the cow or the calf, especially in that heat.

Secondly, Buffet's company is taking to court tax issues. That started in 2002. BUT, you can bet on it that if he loses that he will pay. OTOH, Bundy is basically saying that he will not pay a penny to graze on land, and continues to keep his cattle there, ignoring all of the court's actions.

Bundy has offered numerous times to pay those fees to the State of Nevada or Clark county, but refused to acknowledge federal ownership of that land.

Third, I think that many would agree that the nation no longer represents the ppl. BUT, it DOES represent large companies, such as bundy's.

Large company? Is Bundy's family ranch now considered a large company by the far left. Good God the Bundy ranch is in my opinion a classic example of what the "people" of the country actually means. Are you suggesting family farms would also fall in the category of a large company?

The BlM have bought or driven 57 ranchers from this arid basically worthless range land with Bundy being the last one. Maybe we should put out a vote to people if they would rather see 58 ranchers using this land to raise cattle or should it sit idle in order to protect some tortoise? Let see if the people would consider an increase in the beef supply more important than some tortoise.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

MaxPlanck wrote:Bundy is iconic of the right's problem: when finding an icon from the hinterlands to illustrate individualist maxims who's supposedly suffered from the evil excesses of the Federal government - which when examined, it's evident that Bundy is there to just get what's in it for him - up pops another inarticulate Neanderthal who should have been left in the desert rubble he crawled out of. Next time, a little vetting and grooming will be in order for the next champion for the cause although I found that clip of Bundy riding his horse with the U.S. flag after declaring his non-recognition of the government was entertaining, in a contradictory sort of way.

There was no contradiction, our flag is the real representation of the country not the federal government. Our federal government has been bought and paid and no longer represents the people while the flag represents the individuals who fought and died defending this country.

The real contradiction is we have the BLM thugs killing Bundy's cattle because he owes 1.1 million dollars in back taxes and fees, while back in Washington D.C. we have IRS employees who collectively owe far more than that is back taxes, getting bonus checks for doing a great job. We also have people like Charlie Rangel and Warren Buffet owing more in back taxes than Bundy, dining at the White House with Obama.

The IRS employees', Charlie Rangel's or Warren Buffet's indiscretions are not prima facie justifications to wipe Bundy's slate clean. Get them all to comply; a nation without law is no longer a nation, merely a collection of self-serving tribes.

Exactly now maybe you can explain why this administration is far more focused on some out lining area like the Bundy ranch while completely ignoring and even rewarding others that are basically right next door?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

windbourne wrote:And as to reid being a white collar, you might look up his background. This was a man that was raised dirt poor, and made something of himself.

Yeah right. Harry Reid has made so much of himself that he feels free to call decent American people, who peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies, "Domestic Terrorists," equating them with the violent and unconscionable murderers of 9-11 and other murderers . . . a repugnant comparison on Harry's part.

I'm sorry. What situation are you referring to in which ppl "peacefully dissent and disagree with his political policies"? Because it sure was not about bundy.

Your editorial board may want to review the entire interview of Mr. Bundy. It seems they may have gotten something wrong. Or maybe they just print what ever miss information they like to fit there agenda. Man am I glad I don't take every thing you print at face value.Rex Williams